I feel that the comparisons drawn by that article are unfair to proper crime families._________________The older I get, the more certain I become of one thing. True and abiding cynicism is simply a form of cowardice.

The comment section for that article is just straight up, unadulterated stupid.

Also, as someone who lives in Canada, I personally don't really care about anything related to the royal family, nor do I know anyone who is remotely interested in what is going on with the royal family. The media have hyped up what for the vast majority of Canadians is a non-event, which has subsequently further inflamed the anti-monarchy crowd into thinking people actually care anymore.

Not to mention if you want to condemn the monarchy for things that happened centuries ago, you might want to stop and take a look at the things the American founding fathers did._________________Juke Joint Jezebel

I'm against the royal family receiving a dime of taxpayer money, because I don't like any precedent in a modern nation wherein by virtue of your birth you are guaranteed grandiose wealth paid for by the commonwealth or whatever. Oh right and by accident of birth is the only means by which to become the monarch, who retains the right to appoint the prime minister and dissolve parliament.

aside from that i don't care positively or negatively about royal fever. It's just a showbusiness thing at this point.

The comment section for that article is just straight up, unadulterated stupid.

Also, as someone who lives in Canada, I personally don't really care about anything related to the royal family, nor do I know anyone who is remotely interested in what is going on with the royal family. The media have hyped up what for the vast majority of Canadians is a non-event, which has subsequently further inflamed the anti-monarchy crowd into thinking people actually care anymore.

Not to mention if you want to condemn the monarchy for things that happened centuries ago, you might want to stop and take a look at the things the American founding fathers did.

Well, the Queen dissolved a democratically elected government in Australia. In the 1970's. And that's just one example that's hardly centuries ago. Besides those who defend the monarchy tend to make appeals to tradition, as such is no more than right to examine what the content of that tradition really is._________________A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

The comment section for that article is just straight up, unadulterated stupid.

Also, as someone who lives in Canada, I personally don't really care about anything related to the royal family, nor do I know anyone who is remotely interested in what is going on with the royal family. The media have hyped up what for the vast majority of Canadians is a non-event, which has subsequently further inflamed the anti-monarchy crowd into thinking people actually care anymore.

Not to mention if you want to condemn the monarchy for things that happened centuries ago, you might want to stop and take a look at the things the American founding fathers did.

Well, the Queen dissolved a democratically elected government in Australia. In the 1970's. And that's just one example that's hardly centuries ago. Besides those who defend the monarchy tend to make appeals to tradition, as such is no more than right to examine what the content of that tradition really is.

It wasn't the Queen, it was the Governor General of Australia, and those powers are constitutionally granted to that position. And you're avoiding the point._________________The cat's indifferent or he's just furious, it seems that he's never neither

i just want to know when they're going to bring Simba out and raise him up over all the journalists and in the background it'll be all NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANTS INGONYAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA BAGITHI BABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA and everyone in the parking lot bows reverently and stuff

The comment section for that article is just straight up, unadulterated stupid.

Also, as someone who lives in Canada, I personally don't really care about anything related to the royal family, nor do I know anyone who is remotely interested in what is going on with the royal family. The media have hyped up what for the vast majority of Canadians is a non-event, which has subsequently further inflamed the anti-monarchy crowd into thinking people actually care anymore.

Not to mention if you want to condemn the monarchy for things that happened centuries ago, you might want to stop and take a look at the things the American founding fathers did.

Well, the Queen dissolved a democratically elected government in Australia. In the 1970's. And that's just one example that's hardly centuries ago. Besides those who defend the monarchy tend to make appeals to tradition, as such is no more than right to examine what the content of that tradition really is.

It wasn't the Queen, it was the Governor General of Australia, and those powers are constitutionally granted to that position. And you're avoiding the point.

I wasn't suggesting the Queen personally flew to Australia and dissolved the government, if that was how bussines was done there would be little need for Governor Generals at all.

Oh? You mean to point about apathy about monarchy? That's neither here nor there when it comes to the institution of the monarchy. I'm not saying this the most pressing or important question in the world I just thought the Gawker piece hit the nail on the head. Especially in these times with parts of the media in a royalist fervour.

ShadowCell: _________________A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

Well, the Queen dissolved a democratically elected government in Australia. In the 1970's. And that's just one example that's hardly centuries ago. Besides those who defend the monarchy tend to make appeals to tradition, as such is no more than right to examine what the content of that tradition really is.

You realize the Governor-General was specifically asked to do this due to meeting provisions for a dissolution of parliament?

With the appropriation bills approved by both Houses, they were sent over to Yarralumla where Kerr gave them Royal Assent. With supply assured, he then received Fraser, who advised him that 21 bills (including the electoral redistribution bills) which had been introduced since the last election fulfilled the double dissolution provisions of Section 57. Fraser asked that both Houses be dissolved for an election on 13 December. Kerr signed the proclamation dissolving Parliament, and sent his Official Secretary, David Smith, to proclaim the dissolution from the front steps of Parliament House.

In before a part of Dennis' brain explodes al over the interwebs from Him's um . . . "recounting" of Australian history.

If we're going to go by wikipedia on this at least do me the favour of reading the whole article.

kame: Hahahahahaha. No. Abolishing the monarchy would not "force" the ex-royals to reclaim the profits from royal land. Why? Because it wouldn't be royal land. And, to pick up on that final point made in the video, there has been times when the monarchy has exercised it's political power. Maybe not the most pressing of issues, but isn't it an absurdity that there is an unelected head of state, placed there through accident of birth, appointing prime ministers and the power to veto decisions made by an elected government? Which was why I brought up the Governor-General's dissolving of the Australian government in 1975._________________A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray